本文選題：馬克思 + 諾斯��； 參考：《東南大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)一改西方經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的傳統(tǒng),將制度引入經(jīng)濟(jì)分析中,認(rèn)為制度內(nèi)生于經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展過(guò)程。其實(shí)早于新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)100年的時(shí)候,馬克思就把制度分析和經(jīng)濟(jì)分析聯(lián)系起來(lái),型構(gòu)了其偉大的社會(huì)發(fā)展理論---歷史唯物主義,闡明了人類(lèi)社會(huì)發(fā)展規(guī)律,指明了未來(lái)社會(huì)的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。道格拉斯·C·諾斯無(wú)疑是新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的杰出代表,他因“用經(jīng)濟(jì)理論和數(shù)量方法來(lái)解釋經(jīng)濟(jì)和制度變遷從而在經(jīng)濟(jì)史方面的新的研究”與福格爾共同獲得了1993年諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng),也曾自認(rèn)為是“馬克思理論的篤信者”,后來(lái)又自認(rèn)為超越了馬克思。本文對(duì)兩種制度變遷理論進(jìn)行了比較分析,認(rèn)為兩者的制度范疇、歷史背景、假設(shè)前提和方法論、制度的本質(zhì)和起源、制度的功能、制度變遷的動(dòng)力和路徑、所有制(產(chǎn)權(quán))理論都不相同,諾斯并未超越馬克思。馬克思從整體主義的方法論出發(fā),更多關(guān)注社會(huì)基本經(jīng)濟(jì)制度的變遷。本文“重返”馬克思,對(duì)其未來(lái)社會(huì)公有制理論作了梳理,認(rèn)為其完全勝任中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義建設(shè)的指導(dǎo)思想,增強(qiáng)了改革過(guò)程的制度自信和理論自信。諾斯的制度理論有為資本和私有制辯護(hù)的痕跡,與馬克思理論有本質(zhì)區(qū)別,但這不妨礙其在“市場(chǎng)交易已成為最普遍的經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系形式”(林崗,2000)條件下,對(duì)制度的邊際調(diào)整和變化的成功研究。我國(guó)改革進(jìn)程也是制度變遷,而且是生產(chǎn)關(guān)系的基本點(diǎn)---所有制不發(fā)生根本變化的條件下制度的邊際調(diào)整和變化,諾斯的制度變遷理論亦有用武之地。特別在應(yīng)對(duì)傳統(tǒng)文化阻礙“開(kāi)放進(jìn)入的社會(huì)秩序”形成、既得利益群體阻撓改革進(jìn)程方面,諾斯的“路徑依賴(lài)”理論、漸進(jìn)式制度變遷理論提供了良好的借鑒。通過(guò)本文的研究,作者認(rèn)為：一、馬克思主義社會(huì)發(fā)展理論在當(dāng)代仍具有強(qiáng)大的生命力,從對(duì)資本主義的批判角度,對(duì)整個(gè)人類(lèi)社會(huì)未來(lái)發(fā)展的預(yù)測(cè)角度比諾斯維護(hù)私有產(chǎn)權(quán)和資本主義制度的理論更為宏觀、更為全面、更為科學(xué)；歷史唯物主義為中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義建設(shè)提供了理論指導(dǎo),馬克思未來(lái)社會(huì)所有制理論為我國(guó)社會(huì)主義所有制改革提供了理論依據(jù)。二、中國(guó)歷史悠久,傳統(tǒng)文化影響源遠(yuǎn)流長(zhǎng),區(qū)域范圍廣、地區(qū)差異大,要建立中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義,必須突破傳統(tǒng)“有限進(jìn)入的社會(huì)秩序”之路徑依賴(lài),兼顧各階層、各地區(qū)利益,發(fā)展非人際關(guān)系化交換所需的社會(huì)條件,這些制度的邊際調(diào)整和變化,諾斯的研究頗具現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。三、社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的目標(biāo)模式是讓市場(chǎng)在資源配置中發(fā)揮決定性作用；而基于勞動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)的股份制將是社會(huì)主義公有制的實(shí)現(xiàn)方式,也是向未來(lái)社會(huì)過(guò)渡的公有制模式
[Abstract]:The new institutional economics changed the tradition of western economics and introduced the institution into the economic analysis and thought that the institution was born in the process of economic development. In fact, as early as 100 years before the new institutional economics, Marx linked institutional analysis with economic analysis, constructed his great social development theory--historical materialism, and clarified the law of human social development. It points out the development trend of the future society. Douglas C. North is no doubt an outstanding representative of the new institutional economics. He won the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics with Vogel for "explaining economic and institutional changes in terms of economic theory and quantity, and thus new research in economic history." he also considered himself "a believer in Marx's theory." Later he thought he had surpassed Marx. This paper makes a comparative analysis of the two theories of institutional change, and concludes that their institutional category, historical background, hypothetical premise and methodology, the essence and origin of institution, the function of institution, the motive force and path of institutional change, and so on. Ownership (property rights) theory is different, North did not surpass Marx. Starting from the methodology of holism, Marx paid more attention to the changes of social basic economic system. This article "returns" Marx, has made the comb to its future social public ownership theory, thinks that it is completely competent for the guiding ideology of the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics, has strengthened the system confidence and the theory confidence in the reform process. North's institutional theory has traces of defending capital and private ownership, which is essentially different from Marx's theory, but this does not prevent it from becoming the most common form of economic relations under the condition that "market transactions have become the most common form of economic relations" (Lin Gang 2000). A successful study of the marginal adjustment and change of institutions. The reform process of our country is also institutional change, and it is the basic point of production--The marginal adjustment and change of system under the condition that ownership does not change fundamentally. North's theory of institutional change also has the opportunity of exerting his ability. Especially in dealing with the traditional culture hindering the formation of "open into the social order" and the vested interest groups obstructing the reform process, North's "path dependence" theory and the gradual institutional change theory provide a good reference. Through the research of this paper, the author thinks: first, Marxist social development theory still has strong vitality in the contemporary era, from the angle of criticizing capitalism, The prediction of the future development of human society as a whole is more macroscopic, comprehensive and scientific than North's theory of safeguarding private property rights and the capitalist system. Historical materialism provides theoretical guidance for the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Marx's theory of future social ownership provides a theoretical basis for socialist ownership reform in China. Second, China has a long history, has a long history of traditional culture, has a wide range of regions and wide regional differences. In order to establish socialism with Chinese characteristics, it is necessary to break through the path dependence of the traditional "limited access social order" and take into account all classes. The interests of various regions, the social conditions needed for the development of non-interpersonal exchange, and the marginal adjustment and change of these systems are of great practical significance to North's study. Third, the target mode of socialist market economy is to let the market play a decisive role in the allocation of resources, and the joint-stock system based on labor property rights will be the way to realize socialist public ownership and the mode of public ownership in the transition to the future society.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：A81

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐明君;;馬克思與羅默的剝削理論比較研究[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

2 郭飛;;深化中國(guó)所有制結(jié)構(gòu)改革的若干思考[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年03期

3 吳志峰;;兩種制度變遷理論的比較研究——馬克思社會(huì)發(fā)展理論與諾斯制度變遷理論的比較[J];廣西經(jīng)濟(jì)管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期

4 劉國(guó)光;;關(guān)于分配與所有制關(guān)系若干問(wèn)題的思考[J];高校理論戰(zhàn)線;2007年10期

5 陸劍杰;;哲學(xué)視野中的中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)爭(zhēng)論[J];南京政治學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

6 劉文超;李輝;;諾思是否超越了馬克思——比較兩種不同的社會(huì)制度變遷理論[J];探索;2006年02期

7 葉航,汪丁丁,羅衛(wèi)東;作為內(nèi)生偏好的利他行為及其經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)意義[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2005年08期

8 劉燦,武建奇;《資本論》中生產(chǎn)、交易及其費(fèi)用相關(guān)思想初探[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2005年01期

9 劉鳳義;;新制度學(xué)派與馬克思經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué):關(guān)于企業(yè)理論方法論的比較[J];政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)評(píng)論;2004年02期

10 呂天奇;馬克思與西方學(xué)者產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的觀點(diǎn)綜述與分析[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2004年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1802716